No question that The Planet needs a platform where actions can be funded to confront planetary issues.
Contributing to funding planetary issues has persistently been viewed as burdensome rather than self interest.
This must change.
Just like any other funding conundrum is best resolved with value that is created, multilateral funding must be able to dimension value created by capturing the benefits in Indices that can be publicly offered. The professor in the past has advocated this approach on Climate Change Fund that invests in alternatives to overcome the deleterious consequences of fossil fuel. EBOLA and other similar health predicaments require the same mechanism.
Professor Sachs perhaps in tandem with Gordon Brown - who advocates the same approach for funding education worldwide - perhaps best champions to lead this worldwide effort, to solve a funding conundrum we all know has a creative solution with great value.

The United Nations will be 70 on October 24. Jeffrey Sachs takes the opportunity to highlight the successes and failures of the world body. He also urges for reforms, so that it can "continue to fulfill its unique and vital global role in the twenty-first century". Although its mission is to maintain international peace and security and to promote friendly relations between countries, the UN has not been able to resolve many of the geopolitical problems across the globe. Being constantly criticised for its shortcomings, it has lost much of its prestige.
However the recent nuclear agreement with Iran is seen as a real boost. Sachs says, although it has been "misinterpreted as an agreement between Iran and the United States", it is in fact a deal that Iran has struck with United Nations, represented by the P5+1, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany. He has been told by an Iranian diplomat that Iran would honour the agreement, as it would not "dare to cheat on the very five UN Security Council permanent members that can seal our country’s fate”.
Another milestone achievement the author mentions is the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which was launched in 2000 on Kofi Annan's intiative. Aiming to reduce global poverty it is seeing - according to Sachs - a successful conclusion after 15 years of hard work. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will go further, by narrowing "inequalities", and ensuring "environmental sustainability by 2030". This would help to bring about "a global agreement on climate control, under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, in Paris in December". The latter two will focus on "ocean health, renewable energy systems, urban design, disease control, technological innovation, public-private partnerships, and peaceful cultural cooperation".
Yet to master the many social, economic, humanitarian and cultural challenges, Sachs says the UN needs to increase its funding, by urging richer countries to contribute more. But with this "each member one vote" principle, the big contributors are rather the exception than the rule. They complained often about being outmanoeuvred by a huge bunch of low-income countries.
Sachs speaks of the most important "reform imperative" within the UN - governance - the "composition" of the Security Council, "which no longer reflects global geopolitical realities". But it is a highly visceral issue, and change faces numerous hurdles. The likelihood of expansion was on the agenda when Obama said that the US has backed India's bid for a permanent seat on the council. India, Germany, Japan and Brazil - known as the G4 - and the African Union are among those who have long lobbied for the coveted status of a permanent member.
The opening of the General Assembly to mark the 70th anniversary of the world body next month would allow rhetorical fireworks, when Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Hassan Rouhani, Xi Jinping and François Hollande are all scheduled to deliver speeches, setting out their visions of the geopolitical landscape at the outset of a highly uncertain decade.

I think it is false to attribute all the gains to the fact of setting goals (MDGs), but I certainly do think that measuring progress and setting goals makes it easier to achieve progress/goals. Claiming that the fact of goal setting and measurement ITSELF led to those gains is good for preaching to the choir, but will also contribute to the rest of the message falling on an ever greater number of deaf ears.

Primum non nocere
Dear Nathan, I like your comments on the MDGs. If you add the strange birth-story of the MDGs (It was not a UN baby - but a cooption by OECD,IMF&WB), these goals are far from the success many are trying to attribute to them. On your comment to my attachement to Jeffrey Sachs, I think "doing your best" is not good enough. Stopping doing harm is much better, and Sachs has done more harm than many. We are talking about a lot - a LOT - of victims. Read i.a. Lancet (King et al) on the 1991 capitalist revolution in Russia and the role of Sach "Shock therapy", and you will find that Sachs has a lot to answer for. A lot before I can take the man seriously.

If one look at India's thought leaders, one can find 'some of their ideas are universal'-not self centric. Whatever is happening in it's neighboring countries 'is a confused & confronted' mindset of its 'own thought leaders'. Mind it, India would overcome on its own or it can go on defending as long as earth survives in the planetary system. But 'binary geopolitical opportunism' by the donor countries in the name of fighting terror may cost very High as the risk perception is critical because of 'confused and critical mindset of its thought leaders'.

in Asia or ASEAN, India has all the elements to occupy Permanent Membership in Security Council along with China. under Geo political compulsion, if any other country is allowed at one go 'parallel to India's entry'-it will be a 'naked confusion' on behalf of Global Powers to give birth to another trouble making element in the region.

For example:whatever happened during WW-I or WW-II, cannot be repeated again. But: if unipolarism is imposed, and India is overburdened to spend on defense, the world economy has no particular direction on stability and the 'High Table' may pay a heavy price to adjust the error.

Look at the countries wherever there is internal turmoil, their social engg process is confused and confronted by 'its own thought leaders'-rather than outsiders.

India with her human rights record in Kashmir and inside India, disputes with almost all her neighbors and lack of standing in world affairs pt her very low on the list of contenders.
Turkey, Indonesia, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia have far more strong argument than India, as they will represent the region which is not being represented (Middle East and South East Asia) and the 1.3 Billion Muslims around the globe.
Muslims must have permanent seat in UN security council on rotating basis.

Happy Birthday UN inequlities btween rich and poor are beginning to be taken for granted sociéties Global political leaders must guide human behavior in society sustainability on people as they live in relation to each other and climate change and adaption to the sustainable development of protection biodiversity energy food security Happy Sustainability 2015

It is incredible that Jeffrey Sachs, after som many gross failures in international development through his positions in IMF, World Bank, not to mention the MDG-villages - in Africa, Russia, Argentine, Mongolia - the list is long - still has the nerve to teach the world how to procede.

John Yngvar Jones - Some nerve, holding a man personally responsible for not solving every problem in the world. At least he's trying. What are YOU doing? You didn't even offer anything remotely bordering on a constructive suggestion.

Great article and proposed initiatives. One could argue, though, that most problems the UN faces today could have been greatly minimized if back in 1948 the remarkable UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights started being discussed for one hour, every year, in all classrooms around the world, as deemed adequate for the students’ age. One can only daydream with the impact such initiative could have in one generation. I have been naive enough to send emails to general suggestion boxes of the UN, UNESCO as well as several mass media offices and never got any feedback. Perhaps Prof Sachs could try to persuade the Secretariat to follow such path? Thank you very much for your article and also for your time and consideration regarding the above.

The Republicans would try to convince us that it's brainwashing, and then go back to watching Fox News, where they can be assured of receiving good information, since it reminds them 100 times an hour that it's "unbiased news".

I don't get it why some countries can have veto power - or the permanent seats! The UN was supposed to be an institution in which countries cooperate, not dictate one another. I doubt that in the near time we would see the UN free of these inconveniences, but that would cause a major reorganization on power relation in the world. Let's us remember that an UN military intervention was stopped in Syria - a dictatorship - by Russia. That does says a lot about this institution.

If the most powerful countries have veto power, then you are always guaranteed inaction where powerful interests could align against each other. It carries great cost of inaction resulting in occasional tragedy, but with the benefit of never setting the stage for conflict between great powers. Also, it's a relic of history - the permanent seats went to the victors of WWII.

It was a fatal error to allow the veto to the 5 permanent members of the security council. In 1945 we should have waited until there was willingness on all sides to really empower the UN to save mankind from the scourge of war. By allowing nations to retain their own armies we had settled for something no more potent than the old league of nations and no more able to eradicate war.

No, the UN does not inspire. It has been corrupted by the tyrants, communists and Islamists that make a mockery of human rights and is ineffective in addressing violence and wars.
The nuclear agreement with Iran is not a triumph but rather a farce that assuredly places the world in greater danger 10 years from now.
The success of Capitalism and its development of technologies, not government, is what has reduced poverty in the world.
Investing more in government therefore is NOT an intelligent proposal.

The idea for UN security council reforms raised by Jeffrey Sach is a welcome step one.

The idea of retaining old character of UNSC reminiscent of 2nd world war allied powers over Axis powers is an anachronistic in this new historical equalising global economic political processes.

The reformed UNSC should reflect 21st century global executive power with UNGA as global legislative institution to which it should be accountable as an institutions reflecting global general will and UN Supreme Court in the place of international court of justice as a supreme world judicial institution and all three with coordinate powers to act as checks and balance over one other to prevent any tyrannical concentration of powers.

The UNSC should be a council of SIX of which FIVE members directly elected from each of five continents and one member elected by five members as the president with limited veto powers and the sixth member elected by UNGA from the continent not belonging to the president elect.

The powers of UN institutions from its constituent countries is in the nature of federal character like in US CONSTITUTION.

The above ideas are reflective of historical experience summed up by great political and juristic personalities applied to globalised realities of political economies for peaceful evolution of institutions over the turbulent calamities and to preserve the rights and liberties of future global citizens from state institutions.

The USA commits too many war crimes (which, more specifically, the Republicans are very keen to get away with) to allow itself to be part of any institution that would hold it accountable for those occasions when individual actors go too far in its exercise of military power.

Also, national sovereignty is a founding principle of the UN, so non-UN avenues are the only reasonable way to pursue any "International Supreme Court" or any such thing. As it stands, the court is on the verge of losing all legitimacy because the only people going to trial are African.

Our many political structures all have their flaws and problems. The European Union is struggling to create a viable economic system. The UN is working to provide adequate global diplomacy and aid. The US democracy is struggling to break free of paralysis. Our world demands action and effective leadership in so many areas. Thankfully, the UN exists, thankfully the EU exists and the US exists. Imagine trying to resolve these problems without these basic structures? We need specific, practical derailed reforms to make these systems meet the challenges of the 21st century. Thank you as always Prof Sacks for having the details worked out to help us solve these problems instead of slink back into despair or an endless blame game. Our world and our problems demand action and funds. Let's get to work.

I am not opposed to UN getting more funding if it knows what to do productively with those funds but…is Jeffrey Sachs actually suggesting it is the UN we have to thank for that “the global rate of extreme poverty has been reduced by well over half”?

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.